BAGATSING vs.

RAMIREZ
74 SCRA 306
G.R. No. L-41631 December 17, 1976
MARTIN, J.:

Facts:
Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE
OPERATION OF PUBLIC MARKETS AND PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE RENTALS OF STALLS
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." The
petitioner City Mayor, Ramon D. Bagatsing, approved the ordinance.
Respondent Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. commenced a Civil Case before the CFI by
respondent Judge, seeking the declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 7522 for the reason that (a)
the publication requirement under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila has not been complied
with; (b) the Market Committee was not given any participation in the enactment of the ordinance, as
envisioned by Republic Act 6039; (c) Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has
been violated; and (d) the ordinance would violate Presidential Decree No. 7 of September 30, 1972
prescribing the collection of fees and charges on livestock and animal products.
Private respondent also bewails that the market stall fees imposed in the disputed ordinance are
diverted to the exclusive private use of the Asiatic Integrated Corporation since the collection of said
fees had been let by the City of Manila to the said corporation in a "Management and Operating
Contract."
Resolving the accompanying prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, respondent
Judge issued an order denying the plea for failure of the respondent Federation of Manila Market
Vendors, Inc. to exhaust the administrative remedies outlined in the Local Tax Code.
After due hearing on the merits, respondent Judge rendered another decision, declaring the nullity of
Ordinance No. 7522 of the City of Manila on the primary ground of non-compliance with the
requirement of publication under the Revised City Charter.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the adverse decision, stressing that (a) only a postpublication is required by the Local Tax Code; and (b) private respondent failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies before instituting an action in court.
Respondent Judge denied the motion. Hence petitioners brought the matter to the Supreme Court
through the a petition for review on certiorari.
Issue:
What law shall govern the publication of a tax ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila,
the Revised City Charter (R.A. 409, as amended), which requires publication of the ordinance before
its enactment and after its approval, or the Local Tax Code (P.D. No. 231), which only demands
publication after approval.
Held:

There is no question that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a special act since it relates
only to the City of Manila, whereas the Local Tax Code is a general law because it applies
universally to all local governments. Blackstone defines general law as a universal rule affecting the
entire community and special law as one relating to particular persons or things of a class. And the
rule commonly said is that a prior special law is not ordinarily repealed by a subsequent general law.
The fact that one is special and the other general creates a presumption that the special is to be
considered as remaining an exception of the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as
the law of a particular case. However, the rule readily yields to a situation where the special statute
refers to a subject in general, which the general statute treats in particular. The exactly is the
circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. Section 17 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila
speaks of "ordinance" in general, i.e., irrespective of the nature and scope thereof, whereas, Section
43 of the Local Tax Code relates to "ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges" in
particular. In regard, therefore, to ordinances in general, the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is
doubtless dominant, but, that dominant force loses its continuity when it approaches the realm of
"ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges" in particular. There, the Local Tax
Code controls. Here, as always, a general provision must give way to a particular provision. Special
provision governs. This is especially true where the law containing the particular provision was
enacted later than the one containing the general provision. The City Charter of Manila was
promulgated on June 18, 1949 as against the Local Tax Code which was decreed on June 1, 1973.
The law-making power cannot be said to have intended the establishment of conflicting and hostile
systems upon the same subject, or to leave in force provisions of a prior law by which the new will of
the legislating power may be thwarted and overthrown. Such a result would render legislation a
useless and Idle ceremony, and subject the law to the reproach of uncertainty and unintelligibility.
It is maintained by private respondent that the subject ordinance is not a "tax ordinance," because
the imposition of rentals, permit fees, tolls and other fees is not strictly a taxing power but a revenueraising function, so that the procedure for publication under the Local Tax Code finds no application.
The pretense bears its own marks of fallacy. Precisely, the raising of revenues is the principal object
of taxation. Under Section 5, Article XI of the New Constitution, "Each local government unit shall
have the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such provisions as
may be provided by law." And one of those sources of revenue is what the Local Tax Code points to
in particular: "Local governments may collect fees or rentals for the occupancy or use of public
markets and premises * * *." 14 They can provide for and regulate market stands, stalls and
privileges, and, also, the sale, lease or occupancy thereof. They can license, or permit the use of,
lease, sell or otherwise dispose of stands, stalls or marketing privileges.
Private respondent bewails that the market stall fees imposed in the disputed ordinance are diverted
to the exclusive private use of the Asiatic Integrated Corporation since the collection of said fees had
been let by the City of Manila to the said corporation in a "Management and Operating Contract."
The assumption is of course saddled on erroneous premise. The fees collected do not go direct to
the private coffers of the corporation. Ordinance No. 7522 was not made for the corporation but for
the purpose of raising revenues for the city. That is the object it serves. The entrusting of the
collection of the fees does not destroy the public purpose of the ordinance. So long as the purpose is
public, it does not matter whether the agency through which the money is dispensed is public or
private. The right to tax depends upon the ultimate use, purpose and object for which the fund is
raised. It is not dependent on the nature or character of the person or corporation whose
intermediate agency is to be used in applying it. The people may be taxed for a public purpose,
although it be under the direction of an individual or private corporation.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the court below is hereby reversed and set aside. Ordinance No.
7522 is held validly enacted.